Re: QM Tunneling & CoE
dlzc
David A. Smith
On Nov 25, 11:29�am, Paul <energymo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I know, dumb QM question ;-) Could someone
> outline (or possibly refer to a specific paper or
> book) on how QM addresses possible CoE
> issues with tunneling? For example, what if an
> energetic free electron traveling in a vacuum
> chamber tunnels across a barrier, where the
> barrier contains a polar molecule, as depicted
> in the following time frames,
>
> T1:
> (-)..>..(+.-)..<
>
> T2:
>
> >..(+.-)..<..(-)
>
> where the dots depict space, (-) depicts the
> electron wavepacket, the> char represent the
> left side of the tunneling barrier, the < char is
> the right side of the tunneling barrier, and (+.-)
> would be the polar molecule. The polar
> molecule, (+.-), is within the barrier. The
> electron tunnels across the polar molecule
> from T1 to T2. Classically speaking, the
> electron gained energy as it accelerates
> rightward due to the polar molecule up till
> T1, and continues to repel rightward
> after T2 due to the polar molecule.
>
> How does QM addresses this? Is energy
> removed from the free electron during the
> tunneling process?
>
> Regards,
> Paul
Oh No
QM just says that the amplitude of the wave function of the electron is
non-zero on either side of the tunnel, but zero at the barrier. This
will mean that the electron can be found on either side. We don't
actually model the tunnelling process itself.
Regards
--
Charles Francis
moderator sci.physics.foundations.
charles (dot) e (dot) h (dot) francis (at) googlemail.com (remove spaces and
braces)
Paul
Hi Charles,
Maybe I could add to my example. Lets say we took numerous
measurements of the electron (prior to T1, T1, T2, etc.), which showed
the electron tunneled the barrier, and continued moving far away.
Maybe you could see what I'm trying to get at. That is, a situation
where the electron tunneled. Did the electron lose energy from the
tunneling process due to the polar molecule?
Regards,
Paul
dlzc
On Nov 28, 11:44�am, Paul <energymo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 9:46�am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > Thus spakedlzc<dl...@cox.net>
> Maybe I could add to my example. Lets say we
> took numerous measurements of the electron
> (prior to T1, T1, T2, etc.), which showed the
> electron tunneled the barrier, and continued
> moving far away.
Personally, I don't believe that "times and positions" applies to QM
at all. So this ceases to be a QM problem.
> Maybe you could see what I'm trying to get at.
> That is, a situation where the electron tunneled.
> Did the electron lose energy from the
> tunneling process due to the polar molecule?
We model conservation of energy, even in QM.
David A. Smith
Oh No
>Hi Charles,
>
>Maybe I could add to my example. Lets say we took numerous measurements
>of the electron (prior to T1, T1, T2, etc.), which showed the electron
>tunneled the barrier, and continued moving far away. Maybe you could
>see what I'm trying to get at. That is, a situation where the electron
>tunneled. Did the electron lose energy from the tunneling process due
>to the polar molecule?
No
Paul
Hi,
Didn't they analyze the single electron double slit experiment? I
don't see why the aforementioned event could not be analyzed in QM.
Paul
dlzc
On Nov 30, 9:42�am, Paul <energymo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 7:16�am, dlzc <dl...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 28, 11:44�am, Paul <energymo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 27, 9:46�am, Oh No <N...@charlesfrancis.wanadoo.co.uk> wrote:
> > > > Thus spake dlzc<dl...@cox.net>
> Didn't they analyze the single electron double
> slit experiment? I don't see why the
> aforementioned event could not be analyzed in
> QM.
I'm sure it is. The interaction with slits is modelled, the
detections are modelled, and energy is conserved.
You are seeing something that you are not quite able to convey
still... I am afraid.
David A. Smith